I'm just posting this in response to the post that suggested everyone is female, and men are off-shoots of that.

YIAAB (Yes, I am a biologist) - Technically, men are repressed women, and women are repressed men. Lack of a Y chromosome allows some specific genes to activate which repress the expression of other genes that would normally only be active in biological males. Likewise, having a Y chromosome activates a bunch of male specific genes and represses some female specific ones (there are some genes on the short arm of the X chromosome that are only activated in males for instance).

There's no true default gender unless you really artificially narrow how exactly you're defining things, just tissue that goes down one or another developmental pathway given the right genetic and epigenetic coaxing, unless something funky happens in the genes or the fetal environment.

The "female as default gender" is an old paradigm that popped up in the 50's and we haven't managed to wean ourselves of it yet. It's overly simplistic in my view, and it's far too prone to exploitation in gender identity politics. It outlived its usefulness as a model around 30 years ago, and its best glossed over or corrected in the classroom. (My students in grad school got this lecture when we covered embryology and sex differentiation).

True to some extent, but a lot of people here observations of racism and sexism as accusations against individuals.

If I say that "racism exists in Canada", my students hear "Canadians are racist" even though I never individualized it. I could be talking about social policies, economic differentials, discourses, etc., all of which started before the students were born and may still exist after they die but the students hear it as an accusation.

I think that antiracists and (pro)feminists have to accept some responsibility for continually recasting a social problem as an individual failing (although it is not only antiracists and feminists who do this).

Darn post goblin ate my earlier attempt -

And that socialization is what makes each of us racist, sexist, etc. to some degree. (note that I said to SOME degree.) We don't grow up in vacuums. We are all products of the world we grew up in. Different worlds. Complex worlds.

There are a lot of people making money by keeping the separations, and the battles against them, alive and well.

Part of the draw for FRPG for me is that the imaginary worlds are simpler than the real world I live in.

Batman: You killed my parents.
The Joker: What? What? What are you talking about?
Batman: I made you, you made me first.
The Joker: Hey, bat-brain, I mean, I was a kid when I killed your parents. I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." I mean, how childish can you get?

I win. Because I (Bruce Wayne) was just sitting here thinking "Seoni's look reminds me of Winnowill from ElfQuest. That's cool. I bet she spends a lot of time looking at people with an arched eyebrow, and is a cunning plotter with all sorts of schemes. She'd be interesting to play." and they (the Joker) come along and demonize guys like me (kill my parents), so I get my nose bent out of shape (become Batman) and argue with them on the internet (fight crime).

The entire reason I added my real name to my profile is that I don't like anonymity. I like to fool myself that I'm better than that, but it's just too damn tempting to hide behind an alias and be a complete prick to people.

It also forces me to remember with every post that what I am typing is connected to *me,* not some Egyptian diety.

You know, I really respect you for that.

I myself have had some bad experiences with sharing information even cautiously in private e-mails; never mind public messageboards. Basically, jerks quoting things out of context to make me seem like a bad person and slapping my name beside it - I'll not subject myself to that possibility again.

Batman: You killed my parents.
The Joker: What? What? What are you talking about?
Batman: I made you, you made me first.
The Joker: Hey, bat-brain, I mean, I was a kid when I killed your parents. I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." I mean, how childish can you get?

I win. Because I (Bruce Wayne) was just sitting here thinking "Seoni's look reminds me of Winnowill from ElfQuest. That's cool. I bet she spends a lot of time looking at people with an arched eyebrow, and is a cunning plotter with all sorts of schemes. She'd be interesting to play." and they (the Joker) come along and demonize guys like me (kill my parents), so I get my nose bent out of shape (become Batman) and argue with them on the internet (fight crime).

BATMAN!

Or, you could be Two-Face and argue with yourself. Either way you win! Or lose! Arrghhh!

... BTW, I applaud your efforts in the real world to get students to think about the ramifications of media....

I've been teaching Birth of a Nation during this entire thread, with War of the Worlds (Welles version) preceding it and the rise of the 1930s Legion(s) of Decency to come today. There are real world effects to all images, whether it be selling the idea that a Lexus is a symbol that you've made it, that aliens are invading (or that Germans misidentified as aliens are invading, which a some of the panicking people thought) or that reviving the Klan would be a keen idea. Media's power is that it reinforces norms, sets the boundaries of acceptable dissent, and influences (but does not solely cause) changes in attitudes, beliefs, and very occasionally behaviors.

Emperor7 wrote:

Cliche - isn't there room for all? Or has political correctness damaged our individuality?

Short version: no, political correctness hasn't damaged our individuality. This thread is proof that a number of people in this community have VERY strong individual personalities. And, structurally, there's very little common ground when you come to debates that attempt to balance liberty and equality.

One of the dicey things about free speech debates is that it gets hard to argue apples to apples. And even when you do get to apples to apples, it's hard to count apples.

In this thread, there's been people advocating for more of what they want (at first, humorously although perhaps in a crude and off-putting manner as well) versus people arguing for more diversity of various sorts (certainly in irritation and then anger, perhaps justifiably). Both are making arguments for more and better artistic expression, a good which is difficult to measure.

With Birth of a Nation, the argument is that the free speech of one person (Griffith) ended up playing an important role in silencing the free speech of millions, through inspiring one man to restart the Klan. Go to [http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/history.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk]The First Klan Revival[/url]. That's a right-based argument that's relatively easy to measure.

This argument has been used by both sides here: several gamers have argued that the free speech of Paizo's artists and/or the first pages of this thread silence or drive away certain types of gamers, while others have argued that those gamers are silencing the voices of humorists and het men and a few lesbians through, well, let's call it shame tactics, although you could also call it moral persuasion. Our numbers, however, are not so easy to measure, lacking hard data on illustration's influence on purchasing decisions in the gaming world.

Several sides are arguing for the right to self-expression ("I like laddie images! You can't tell me I shouldn't!" "I likes me Mammy Graul!" "I want cheesecake AND beefcake! You can't tell me that I shouldn't!" "I like more norms!"). That's another good which is precious but difficult to measure.

In addition, lots of sides are claiming the value of equality. One side claims that a lack of parity in hyper-sexualized imagery leads to less female gamers, harming the community by reducing its diversity. Another side claims that having no or fewer hyper-sexualized images sends the message that heterosexual men are not welcomed by Paizo, harming the community. One side claims that having hyper-sexualized imagery at all harms the community in a similar manner.

On a meta level, some even claim that discussing this issue at all harms this online community by driving away _____. Many have claimed that how _____ talk about this issue harms the community by driving away _______.

That's where the apples to oranges comes in: balancing liberty and equality.

And the second problem is that we're dealing with a zero sum game: every image that Paizo makes cheesecake is one that can't be beefcake or halflings in kilts or nonsexualized imagery. And vice versa.

And we can't because every image that Paizo puts in is less text for the adventure. That means that the stakes are higher than they would be if we could increase the pie by having more images that satisfy everyone.

Finally, there have been legitimate arguments on many sides arguing that illustrations influence the world in real ways that contribute to and normalize harmful behaviors of various sorts: male confusion about their role in a new world, female sexual identity as being desirable rather than desired, male and female body image, etc.

Frankly, I'm surprised that there hasn't been someone arguing to get rid of all fluff illustration entirely, asking for just maps and pics of the monsters and major NPCs. Had I thought of it, it's definitely the stance that I would have taken. (I may start another thread.)

The entire reason I added my real name to my profile is that I don't like anonymity. I like to fool myself that I'm better than that, but it's just too damn tempting to hide behind an alias and be a complete prick to people.

It also forces me to remember with every post that what I am typing is connected to *me,* not some Egyptian diety.

You know, I really respect you for that.

I myself have had some bad experiences with sharing information even cautiously in private e-mails; never mind public messageboards. Basically, jerks quoting things out of context to make me seem like a bad person and slapping my name beside it - I'll not subject myself to that possibility again.

Seconded. I have taught a number of very media-savvy students over 8 years. Some of them get disgruntled. One of them used some fairly hurtful language about me in an online forum already, let alone what I get in the rants on ratemyprofessor. (The raves are very nice to read, however.) Plus, hiring committees are already genrist against fantasy/sci-fi; gaming's not something I feel the need to make readily available to them on a google search.

Set: has it ever come back to haunt you? Or have you had someone recognize you in real life by knowing your net identity?

<looks around the room, pulls out imaginary checklist: "Let's see: Recognition of the error of his ways. Check. Timely apology. Check. ...">

;-)

The one thing that I wish that I could take back would be that I wish that I had restricted myself to saying that I didn't find Set's comment funny and didn't read it as a joke and just asked whether he meant it as a joke. Everybody has jokes that fall flat sometimes. I wish I had given him one chance to explain that particular comment before going off.

Edit: The one thing right now. I'm moving tomorrow and I'm not about to go through this entire thread to parse my words.

No probs - frankly, I lost heart in the whole argument. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, you seem like a good guy and we share an interest in a minority hobby, so why get niggly with each other?

By the way, my wife and I are off to France on holiday to a place called Saumur (sp?) in the Loire valley, where they have these caves carved into the valley sides where people lived until quite recently (i.e. a few decades ago). These are called "troglodyte dwellings" - I shall be sure to ask the inhabitants their views on the objectification of women, and then maybe we can put the whole debate to bed.

No probs - frankly, I lost heart in the whole argument. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, you seem like a good guy and we share an interest in a minority hobby, so why get niggly with each other?

By the way, my wife and I are off to France on holiday to a place called Saumur (sp?) in the Loire valley, where they have these caves carved into the valley sides where people lived until quite recently (i.e. a few decades ago). These are called "troglodyte dwellings" - I shall be sure to ask the inhabitants their views on the objectification of women, and then maybe we can put the whole debate to bed.

Watch out for the whole unshaved armpit thing! That kind of social neutrality I can pass on. LOL.

cool, now i can play the "monthly bill" card when im not in the best of moods like the gf does when she gets mopey...

You laugh, but wait until you hit male menopause and your testosterone levels sink through the floor.

That's called marriage, right?

...

No, I mean that seriously. Men whose testosterone levels become or are steadier (and slightly lower) tend to have fewer divorces. After divorce, testosterone levels increase. ... Or at least that's what I read in Men's Health.

Spoiler:

What? I can't read Men's Health? How else am I gonna get a job posing as Paizo beefcake when the market opens up?

MarkusTay wrote:

I got divorced last year and finally grew mine back.

MarkusTay's tongue-in-cheek observation may not have been entirely off the mark.

This thread gives me a headache...but less so than a few days ago. I'm not even sure why I am reading it, other than to get a little better perspective as to where you folks are coming from, thoughts-wise.
There has been some flaming, but we are human after all, and I think that there is (Finally) some civility to the discussion.

My take:

As a male, I like scantily clad females. I see scantily clad female as a matter of course at my job. I work in a night club (I am a bartender in a big club here in San Francisco).
I don't necessarily mind a female character in games/art/etc... being conceptualized in a revealing outfit, if it makes sense.
Rogue in tight leathers, sorceress in 'knock-out' dress (Seoni's breast implants bug the hell out of me, though...sorry, real world prejudice coming out), Badass barbarian girl in piecemeal armor with the huge sword= cool Archetype. Showing her midriff???

I have always been bothered by the form fitting chainmail, every since Morgan Ironwolf, that hot sample PC from basic DnD...it just didn't make sense to my logical mind, even at 12. When an artist shows the female character showing off their legs, or their midriff, when they are otherwise armored, it bugs me, as it is just ludicrous, from a practical standpoint.My preferred Minis game, Confrontation is a much bigger culprit than the Pathfinder artists, trust me (The Red Lioness, a major Lion Army personality...wearing a thong astride a Clydesdale!?! Someone should make the sculpture wear a thong and ride a horse for an hour or three...it really makes me NOT buy the fig.
Am I allowed this opinion and stance? Yes.
Are others allowed their opinions and stances on the subject? Yes.

I was the GM for a game store chain in the late 90s, and can tell you that up to 99 (Not sure afterwards, as I left for other pastures), Games Workshop's number one selling fig ever was the female Commissar, and she was wearing thigh highs and stiletto heels...against Tyranids and Chaos Marines,no less. Artists design what the audience wants, and the Sisters of Battle army shows that as well. An entire army of Bettie Pages? Yes, because gamers love them.

Anyways, I think that as long as the female character in question is shown in a practical light (If you are in plate mail, it shouldn't be form fitting to your chest...that's just dangerous when some mad Orc warlord comes along with a Greataxe...) you can have a happy medium of sexy and strong, without being seen as weak, or subservient or in some other negative,light.

Feel free to agree, ignore or attempt to take my statement apart (You will lose, as it is my opinion, as yours is yours).

Thanks to those who took the time to read my first real input on the subject.

This thread gives me a headache...but less so than a few days ago. I'm not even sure why I am reading it, other than to get a little better perspective as to where you folks are coming from, thoughts-wise.

There has been some flaming, but we are human after all, and I think that there is (Finally) some civility to the discussion.

Etc...

Methinks this thread suffers a bit from rubber-necking syndrome - people just can't help reading the explosions. But every so often, someone makes some good observations (like yourself, might I add).

For example, I am not against the artwork of a tiefling prostitute being seductive, as that is within character and could be used to get a better concept of the situation and personality. But putting warriors in chainmail-bikinis is so ludricrous, we might as well cave in to the multitude of other fanboyish desires:

Psionics everywhere!

Katanas crit range 1-20 and deal 4d8 damage!

Fanfinction canon! (is there even Pathfinder fanfic? Nevermind, I don't want to know.)

A perfectly reasonable opinion expressed in a perfectly reasonable way. ... Are you sure you're in the right thread? ;-)

Tarren Dei wrote:

Uriel393 wrote:

This thread gives me a headache...but ...

A perfectly reasonable opinion expressed in a perfectly reasonable way. ... Are you sure you're in the right thread? ;-)

Yes, I am certain. My headache was merely regarding a few explosions fro various folks for various reasons regarding the subject. Perhaps the headache was from staring at a monitor, whilst reading all these posts...

Anyways, as an aside, I noticed this last night.
I was watching RE3:Extinction,and I noticed that Mila was wearing big boots and stockings, complete with garters...while riding a motorcycle through the desert. Er...sexy, well, yes. Practical: Um...
Before, my only complaint was that she was wielding a pair of kukris...yet not decapitating the 'Super Zombies', but merely slitting their throats (Way to keep that PG-13 rating!).

What if we were to use this thread to actually show what people are talking about. I would like to see the images (aside from Seoni's two shots--walking as her iconic, and battling in her outfit from the Alpha) that folks think are either

a) entertaining and inspiring scantily clad females that don't denigrate or objectify women (since there is a legitimate argument on that score--google 'feminist pin-up girls' for example)

or

b) awful oppressive demonstrations of the phallocracy at work in FRPG.

My argument that Seoni might have a powerful reason to dress as she does in a world where violence is always at hand and her power takes time to express (through spellcasting) falls apart when applied to Red Sonja. On the other hand, Red Sonja, while impractically dressed, surely gets the advantage in the surprise round versus heterosexual male human opponents.

So, lets see some links and put some actual imagery to the test, lest our debate fall apart due to a lack of antagonistic viewpoints. :)

(As an aside, the modern biological view that both sexes exist as expressions of the repressed markers for the opposite sex has caused my mind to bend a bit; almost like quantum physics. Fun stuff to think anew.)

So, lets see some links and put some actual imagery to the test, lest our debate fall apart due to a lack of antagonistic viewpoints. :)

That's actually quite a good idea.

Pictured (OK, linked) is Mira the Recklass, the 'bad girl' of the Griffin army in Confrontation. To me, this is an example of a great miniature, done by a truly gifted sculptor...but the exposed bust!?! Discuss...

What if we were to use this thread to actually show what people are talking about. I would like to see the images (aside from Seoni's two shots--walking as her iconic, and battling in her outfit from the Alpha) that folks think are either

a) entertaining and inspiring scantily clad females that don't denigrate or objectify women (since there is a legitimate argument on that score--google 'feminist pin-up girls' for example)

[. . . edited for size . . .]

So, lets see some links and put some actual imagery to the test, lest our debate fall apart due to a lack of antagonistic viewpoints. :)

Okay, some pictures of “entertaining and inspiring scantily clad females that don't denigrate or objectify women” – I would think that these women are feeling empowered if anything else.

What if we were to use this thread to actually show what people are talking about. I would like to see the images (aside from Seoni's two shots--walking as her iconic, and battling in her outfit from the Alpha) that folks think are either

Well, I think we can have respectful and substantive discussion on the topic as long as we agree that sexism is societal not individual ... in other words, let's not go around blaming each other for stuff.

I catalogued the images in Pathfinder Gazatteer above and found that there is as much 'beefcake' as 'cheesecake'. What is lacking are women NPC-types or non-heroic women. That surprised me. Others have assured me that the modules are going to skew this towards cheesecake. I'm interested in seeing what happens there.

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:

a) entertaining and inspiring scantily clad females that don't denigrate or objectify women (since there is a legitimate argument on that score--google 'feminist pin-up girls' for example)

or

b) awful oppressive demonstrations of the phallocracy at work in FRPG.

Why can't they be both? Why!? Why!!?? No, seriously, I think that since a lot of the arguement has to do with how these images are 'read,' the question of whether they are one OR the other is not easily answerable. Someone may intend for an image, a joke, a story, a character to be 'a' but the reader takes her as 'b'.

Anecdote: A girlfriend who was president of the local women's center and an active member of the rape crisis center tells me a joke about a strong sexually aggressive woman. I repeat joke to another feminist friend. Feminist friend says "You a%$!*!!. That's the most sexist thing I ever heard." ;-) And, of course, it was because the reader decides whether something is 'a' or 'b'.

My argument that Seoni might have a powerful reason to dress as she does in a world where violence is always at hand and her power takes time to express (through spellcasting) falls apart when applied to Red Sonja. On the other hand, Red Sonja, while impractically dressed, surely gets the advantage in the surprise round versus heterosexual male human opponents.

Spoiler:

Red Sonja is a poor example, because she's such a corner case. Sonja's bikini is definitively not intended as armor. Sonja doesn't need armor because she is blessed by a goddess, and faster and stronger than any man. Her skin practically repels blades (swords scratch her), and she's so nimble that any amount of armor would "limit her max dex bonus." So that's part of the in-character explanation for why she dresses that way.

Also, Sonja was specifically blessed by said goddess to act as the fury of women's vengeance on men. In a very real sense, Sonja intentionally dresses in such a way that men who think that a woman dressed a certain way is "asking for it" will think she is asking for it. Thus she lures out a certain sort of man (usually by walking into a bar), who attempts to prey on her, which justifies her killing him. It's a running theme in the various comics. Basically anytime they want to show a "ordinary day" in the life of Sonja (usually at the beginning of a tale), that's what they show her doing. So that's a another part of the in-character explanation for why she dresses that way.

Finally, Sonja is rooted in comic-book fantasy, where realism and armor have never really had f$!@-all to do with each other. I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw anyone wearing anything heavier than a sleeveless chain haubrek in a fantasy comic? It's too hard to draw panel after panel after panel of real armor, hence the popularity of fantasy barbarian heroes in comics. The guys who drew red Sonja were used to drawing people in skin-tight spandex. Of course she's mostly nude. It's just flesh colored spandex!

When you compare Sonja to the other female characters she was selling alongside, her outfit really doesn't seem nearly as outrageous. When Sonja first appeared (during the height of feminism and the sexual revolution), she would have been found close to She-Hulk (green amazon in tattered miniskirt), Ms. Marvel (blonde bombshell in skin-tight, bare midriff leotard) and Spider-Woman (more spandex, breast enhancing triangle costume design).

This is the same era that gave us Luke Cage in a yellow blouse and tiara. The 70's were wild man, wild.

It's almost as annoying as having 12+ hyper-sexualized female images to 1 sexualize male image in Paizo's Gamemastery and Pathfinder lines... which I support for their quality and for their politics.

Replying a bit late here to be doing any bit of good, but there is that one illustration (or two) with a half-elf wizard being under the receiving end of a Kobold's sacrificial dagger from the Crown of the Kobold King module. Pity about the wizard, since, as written, he comes to a bad end- it's enough to tear yer heart out (but of course, it's a Logue module, so what else can ya expect?).

I would rather play a loin-cloth clad, muscles rippling barbarian than a Plate armored fight if I could get a decent AC out of it. If I could get a hold of a loincloth +5 AC and ditch the shield for a codpiece +2 I would!

[threadjack] why are northern barbarians so often depicted as clad in loincloths -such as Conan- it's COLD up there! [/threadjack]

One of my female players liked her fighter very much, who wear a thong+5 with cold resistance. It was one of the few characters who drove her character alignment from chaotic good to lawful evil and had much fun to do this. The campagne was around a succubbus who was on the way to become a major freedom goddess and the characters were her priests, apostles and so on. I only say - watch out for the girls. Everyone had fun, but especially the highpriestes Eisenader

Not to summon dead horses to this thread, but i did a quick count of the Campaign setting. With a few noticeable exceptions, the count is quite different from what i feared.

A few words to scoring: I gave a "fc" (fully clothed) whenever i felt no need to justify why the heck someone would run around dressed like that. For somewhat impractical clothing where i had to come up with an explanation i gave a "reveal", and for what you would find in a bad 90s comic, i gave an "almost naked". Images that struck me as "needlessly sexualized" got a "ck"

I may be off in the counts, doing them by head. :) However, these numbers look pretty good, IMNSHO. Woman are drawn as eye candy a more frequently than men, but that might actually be the effect of my male eyes finding it more easily. There is no huge disproportion between appearances. Finally, the suggestive depictions are way less frequent than many other books of the campaign setting's size, and a 1:3 ratio of males to females is (while not "good") much better than many other books manage

Not to summon dead horses to this thread, but i did a quick count of the Campaign setting. With a few noticeable exceptions, the count is quite different from what i feared.

A few words to scoring: I gave a "fc" (fully clothed) whenever i felt no need to justify why the heck someone would run around dressed like that. For somewhat impractical clothing where i had to come up with an explanation i gave a "reveal", and for what you would find in a bad 90s comic, i gave an "almost naked". Images that struck me as "needlessly sexualized" got a "ck"

Cover:
+- Valeros m, fc
+- Seoni f, reveal, ck
+- Merisel f, fc

I'm going to wait till I have the hardcopy to go through the book like this, but just looking at the cover, I'm already confused by your count.

Is Seoni always going to get the "needlessly sexualized" tag, simply for being Seoni? Because I see absolutely nothing sexualized in that cover. Valeros and Seoni are in almost the exact same pose (just inverted left-to-right), with the exact same expression on their faces. The only real difference is Valeros has readied his sword while Seoni is readying a spell. I really can't imagine what qualifies this image as "needlessly sexualized."

It seems like you are assuming as a default that everyone would wear fully concealing clothing unless they had strong reason not to. I don't think that can really be justified by looking at actual human behavior, especially given that Seoni's revealing outfit is hardly inexplicable or unreasonable.

Seriously, just your criteria show so much of a bias towards wanting to find a problem, it really makes me question your outcomes.

finds it ironic, but not surprising, that a woman can post that she likes most of the art in question finding it to be empowering without being flamed. affirming TD's analogy about the womens' center joke.

My experience leads me to believe that guys like roguerogue seek acceptance from misandristic quasi-feminists* like krissbeth primarily because they can't it hack in male peer groups and always end up being the low man on the totem pole. So instead, they try to weasel their way into the company of women who don't like men by embracing the hate.

Guys like roguerogue make a bit noisy show about how much better than the rest of us poor juvenile pig-men, but I'd bet money that 90% of his fervor on this thread is rooted in a desire to get in krissbeth's pants.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Hey, thanks for the completely unnecessary and antagonistic personal attack.

....

You're an idiot. Die in a fire.

Gilbraithe,

I hope you will understand that this is a personal attack, but not intended to be antagonistic.

You're being hypocritical, asking people to 'stick to the high road' while you're wallowing in the depths of depravity, metaphorically speaking.

I take umbrage to that. I don't think that kind of behavior is acceptable or necessary.

Tarren Dei's point was that the conclusion was that there is no problem. If you choose to disagree with his methodology, that's fine. But the way you said it, you seemed to imply that his conclusion was the opposite of correct, despite the fact that you seem to share that conclusion.

I find that somewhat strange, myself.

In any case, I certainly hope that the unncessary (and antagonistic) perosnal attacks will cease, since I know that every poster on these boards is better than that.

Tarren Dei's point was that the conclusion was that there is no problem. If you choose to disagree with his methodology, that's fine. But the way you said it, you seemed to imply that his conclusion was the opposite of correct, despite the fact that you seem to share that conclusion.

Finally, the suggestive depictions are way less frequent than many other books of the campaign setting's size, and a 1:3 ratio of males to females is (while not "good") much better than many other books manage[.]

It seems what he's saying is that the books is much better than many other books, it is still not good. Without getting into issues of the worthiness of these sorts of surveys in general, I have some specific issues with his claim that there are 3.5 times as many suggestive pictures of women as men.

If the "ck" tag represents the "suggestive pose," and if the image of Seoni on the cover being counted as on of these seven suggestive (and that appears to be the case, as there are 7 female cks, and 2 male cks), then I think TerraNova's conclusions about the ratio of suggestive depictions is highly questionable.

There is nothing particularly suggestive about Seoni's pose on the cover - as I mentioned, it is the exact same pose as that of Valeros, who does not get the "ck." Likewise, another of the images he is tagging as suggestive is the iconic image of Amri we're all familiar with. There is nothing sexually suggestive about that picture at all! One only has to look towards women's athletics to see the clear inspiration for both Amri's build and garb.

So already, we have two images listed as "sexually suggestive" that simply aren't. New count: 5 to 2.

I'm wondering what happens when I keep going?

On politeness:

Spoiler:

Tarren: I apologize for snapping at you, but your comment was a personal attack hiding as a dismissal of the issue I raised with TerraNova (i.e. not you), and dismissing reasonable questions for unreasonable reasons is not conducive to polite discussion. As you've admitted, it was a passive-aggressive comment and thus you've got little room to take issue with me snapping at you.

Nor does anyone else, such as Dead DM Walking, for that matter. Seriously dude, don't lecture me on being polite after Tarren has already admitted to being intentionally passive-aggressive. That's needlessly irritating, and makes you look like you're not just playing internet Cop, but Biased & Partial Internet Cop, which most will agree is the worst sort of Internet Cop.

Valeros and Seoni are in almost the exact same pose (just inverted left-to-right), with the exact same expression on their faces. The only real difference is Valeros has readied his sword while Seoni is readying a spell. I really can't imagine what qualifies this image as "needlessly sexualized."

Some people might see the arching of the back and the prominence of the hips as such(two things Valeros isn't doing).

Also, this thread REALLY needs less instances of taking and making things so personal. Civility guys! Agree to disagree, etc.!

Some people might see the arching of the back and the prominence of the hips as such(two things Valeros isn't doing).

I can't even tell if her back is arched or if it's just the angle. And mentioning her hips only brought it to my attention that her right leg is not connected to her right hip. But I think the bigger question is what happened with Merisil? Look at her head! It's all...wrong.

I looked at the rest of TerraNova's sexually suggestive options, and only the image on pg 70 is sexually suggestive (from my perspective). The rest are just people standing around, most of them in very aggressive stances.

The page 70 image, from the section on Chellix of course, has a succubus in the foreground and a noblewoman lounging in a throne of some sort in the background. There's some commoner dude tied up getting kissed (i.e. life drained) by the succubus, and a pit fiend gimp standing by the noblewoman. Both the pit fiend and the succubus are wearing bondage gear. Considering it shows one female demon kissing/killing a helpless unwilling male for the amusement of another woman who keeps a pit fiend as her gimp, I'm having trouble how anyone could say it demeans women. It seems to be coming from a very female supremacist BDSM sort of angle, which is hardly your traditional patriarchial subversion of women.

This sort of Wethhamian counting -- which reaches its own stupid little apox in threads like the "13.5 nipples in the core books" thread over on WOTC's Astrid's Parlor -- doesn't lead to anything productive, as it's inevitabely biased and so subjective as to be useless. I mean one of the two sexually suggestive pictures of men he tagged was of a monk in a kata with a single bare shoulder. I had no idea men's shoulders were sexually suggestive when combined with martial arts poses. I can't even begin to fathom why he tagged that, but not the two men in the page 70 illustration.